This position intrigues me. Riding with the feet crossed is considered by many to be taboo, but it seems that as though everytime I turn around, there's a new method for doing just that. IMO the threat is a fallacy, especially given the number of escapes relying on the hooks being open. Anyone agree that its time to retire that concept?

1/24/2011 1:16am,

DKJr

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanT

This position intrigues me. Riding with the feet crossed is considered by many to be taboo, but it seems that as though everytime I turn around, there's a new method for doing just that. IMO the threat is a fallacy, especially given the number of escapes relying on the hooks being open. Anyone agree that its time to retire that concept?

Yes, and no.

Yes, I will cross my feet from back mount if I'm riding higher up on their back so as to get an angle for a bow and arrow choke or switch to the armbar while still being somewhat secure. My feet are as close to their legs, thus making it more difficult for them to apply the ankle lock.

No, if I have my hooks in deep and I'm riding lower from back mount so as to have maximum leverage to choke them or flatten them out (should such opportunity arise) with the RNC or sliding collar crossing my feet will expose the ankle lock.

The answer as with a lot of things like this is Maybe.

That's this determined fence-sitter's stand.

1/24/2011 1:43am,

CoffeeFan

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanT

This position intrigues me. Riding with the feet crossed is considered by many to be taboo, but it seems that as though everytime I turn around, there's a new method for doing just that. IMO the threat is a fallacy, especially given the number of escapes relying on the hooks being open. Anyone agree that its time to retire that concept?

I think as a general rule it is a good one, since you want to instill good habits in beginners. Obviously when you have a good understanding of positioning and submissions you can play around with some of the "golden rules."

I agree with DK Jr., the higher up the back the less dangerous it is to cross your feet. You do have to watch out for the crossed legged ankle lock or heel hook however if you have it close to the hips.

1/24/2011 3:10am,

Like_A_Boss

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Koresh Jr.

Yes, and no.

Yes, I will cross my feet from back mount if I'm riding higher up on their back so as to get an angle for a bow and arrow choke or switch to the armbar while still being somewhat secure. My feet are as close to their legs, thus making it more difficult for them to apply the ankle lock.

No, if I have my hooks in deep and I'm riding lower from back mount so as to have maximum leverage to choke them or flatten them out (should such opportunity arise) with the RNC or sliding collar crossing my feet will expose the ankle lock.

The answer as with a lot of things like this is Maybe.

That's this determined fence-sitter's stand.

I was taught another reason for not crossing the ankles is that if your opponent does roll over, while you still have his back he can rotate back into your guard because you arent controlling the hips, where if you have your hooks in he cant move his hips.

1/24/2011 9:29am,

WhiteShark

I don't know why anyone would want to cross their ankles. It makes it easier for the person who is back mounted to turn and it makes you susceptible to the stupid ankle lock. Lately I've been playing with keeping the person on their side and reverse hooking the top leg so they can't turn at all. It's a great position if you have the foot dexterity.

1/24/2011 9:55am,

JordanT

I do it so that they can't reach down and pull the hooks open or move through the gap, both common counters. I haven't run into the turning problem yet, at least as far as guard is concerned. They're turning into the underhook side, yes? The ankle lock and heel hook aren't really issues at all. I've found that if you uncross your feet as he applies it, you can ride with both hooks under the same side shin. If you pinch the knees together he's immobilized.

1/24/2011 10:08am,

WhiteShark

Do you often focus on Gi? Having them turn in to guard is more common in No-Gi because of the sweat and lower friction.

Reaching down sounds really weird to me. If someone reaches for my foot they are typically fucked. That means they are only defending RNCs with one hand or opening themselves to the BJ Penn back mount where you pin the low arm.

If I got any mileage out of the crossed feet I'd play with it more. Typically I only cross my feet if I'm really high and transitioning. I never hang out there.

1/24/2011 3:50pm,

JordanT

I do mostly no gi. I've found that turning around can be countered without much difficulty. Double unders threatens two arm triangles. I did have trouble with the backpack, so I started reaching across with the top hand for a figure four. This threatens the arm triangle if they roll into the underhook and the kimura if they roll away.

You're absolutely correct on the counter attack to reaching down, but I've seen it done. The threat of shrimping out from the hooks is also present when they're at the thighs.

1/24/2011 4:08pm,

WhiteShark

That could be it. I use the Garcia grip/seat belt constantly.

1/24/2011 4:33pm,

JordanT

My RNC and forearm chokes aren't emphasised enough for me to use that grip.